In Federal Court today, Judge Virginia Kendall gave a favorable decision in Ezell v Chicago, the case that challenges Chicago's ban on firing ranges that are open to the public, and the new city ordinances as a result of this case that establish a de-facto ban on any ranges.

I just got the email on this too. Does this impact Highland Park too, or is that a different district? Highland Park has a ban on shooting ranges. Iirc, it's Chapter 134 of the Highland Park ordinances.

So the city officials opposed the approval of gun ranges because the "movement of" guns and ammunition through the area both pose a public health and safety risk, AND also "creates a potential for criminal activity".

Without explaining why or providing any rational argument behind that "fear"

I just got the email on this too. Does this impact Highland Park too, or is that a different district? Highland Park has a ban on shooting ranges. Iirc, it's Chapter 134 of the Highland Park ordinances.

Lake and Cook County are both in Northern District of Illinois.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance

Their level of "humor" is right up there with Lieutenant Clark and Sergeant Thompson of the ISP.

You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

One of my favorite quotes from this that really demonstrate that this City (and the state) often think no-one, anywhere, knows anything about guns but them...

In talking about zoning:

Neither Scudiero nor anyone from her department researched zoning ordinances on firing ranges in other cities.

Imagine that. You are tasked to create new regs for zoning from scratch and never even looked at what other cities do... (or you lied to the court to ensure you didnt have to say that other cities dont do this crap)

when it comes to the Second Amendment, Chicago has a history of making stupid and expensive decisions in the wake of every legal defeat.

It is a cycle that I don't expect to change.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?

when it comes to the Second Amendment, Chicago has a history of making stupid and expensive decisions in the wake of every legal defeat.

It is a cycle that I don't expect to change.

Hey, you never know, somebody's uncle might own an industrial zoned warehouse 802 feet from a school or park. As much as Chicago has a history of making stupid decisions, I suspect they're vetting potential kickbacks right now so they know exactly how to craft a law that only Cousin Tony can comply with.

So the city officials opposed the approval of gun ranges because the "movement of" guns and ammunition through the area both pose a public health and safety risk, AND also "creates a potential for criminal activity".

Without explaining why or providing any rational argument behind that "fear"

Here are some excerpts from the Moore decision by the 7th. You can extrapolate the "arguments" the state presented pretty easily:

And because fewer than 3 percent of gun-related deaths are from accidents, Hahn et al., supra, at40, and because Illinois allows the use of guns in hunting and target shooting, the law cannot plausibly be defended on the ground that it reduces the accidental death rate, unless it could be shown that allowing guns to be carried in public causes gun ownership to increase, and we have seen that there is no evidence of that.<snip>And a ban as broad as Illinoiss cant be upheld merely on the ground that its not irrational.<snip>A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would....And empirical evidence of a public safety concern can be dispensed with altogether when the ban is limited to obviously dangerous persons such as felons and the mentally ill. <snip>There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the states taking a different approach from the other 49 states. If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it.<snip>The key legislative facts in this case are the effects of the Illinois law; the state has failed to show that those effects are positive.<snip>. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.

As you can see, rationality has little to do with {D}a gun grabber mindset in this state.

You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

when it comes to the Second Amendment, Chicago has a history of making stupid and expensive decisions in the wake of every legal defeat.

It is a cycle that I don't expect to change.

Hey, you never know, somebody's uncle might own an industrial zoned warehouse 802 feet from a school or park. As much as Chicago has a history of making stupid decisions, I suspect they're vetting potential kickbacks right now so they know exactly how to craft a law that only Cousin Tony can comply with.

Yeah watch how quick they re-zone that space out from under him or buys his place under eminent domain for the "fair price" of the land/building.

I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

when it comes to the Second Amendment, Chicago has a history of making stupid and expensive decisions in the wake of every legal defeat.

It is a cycle that I don't expect to change.

Hey, you never know, somebody's uncle might own an industrial zoned warehouse 802 feet from a school or park. As much as Chicago has a history of making stupid decisions, I suspect they're vetting potential kickbacks right now so they know exactly how to craft a law that only Cousin Tony can comply with.

Yeah watch how quick they re-zone that space out from under him or buys his place under eminent domain for the "fair price" of the land/building.

Nah, then they're stuck without a kickback. This is Chicago, principles are just complicated price tags.

In Federal Court today, Judge Virginia Kendall gave a favorable decision in Ezell v Chicago, the case that challenges Chicago's ban on firing ranges that are open to the public, and the new city ordinances as a result of this case that establish a de-facto ban on any ranges.

Heh, I just noticed who the judge was. I had federal jury duty last November, and Kendall was the judge in the case I heard. After the trial she invited all us jurors to her chambers to talk about the case or anything else we wanted, and I remember thinking she'd be a good judge to hear firearms cases because she had lots of pics of wildlife in her chambers, I figured her for at least someone who had a lot of hunters in her family. I never asked her about gun rights though.

eta: Federal judges have spectacular chambers btw!

Edited by chislinger, 28 September 2015 - 05:38 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams